M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Belesari

New Member
From AUSA 2012.


https://garrison-michigan.army.mil/events/PEO_GCS_Indsutry_Day_AUSA_Overview_(24_OCT_12).pdf

BTW read the Ground Combat Vehicle program part, it is clear there that they want to expand GCV program, and new Infantry Fighting Vehicle is called there as first increment of the program, so my suspicions are probably right that under the GCV new tank and self propelled howitzer might be designed as well.
Wish they would just pick a good APC. Dont pick a IFV or a 50 ton monster. Heck they are even hinting at a tracked stryker.

But from what i've seen no one seen the need for a new MBT. The Abrams performs superbly in that role and will for decades.
 

Damian90

New Member
Wish they would just pick a good APC. Dont pick a IFV or a 50 ton monster. Heck they are even hinting at a tracked stryker.

But from what i've seen no one seen the need for a new MBT. The Abrams performs superbly in that role and will for decades.
Useability of lightweight armored tracked platforms ended, there is no need for them in role of APC's and IFV's for front line units, as their survivabilit as well as survivability of people inside is just too low.

APC's are not good as a support for infantry and MBT's. IFV with a basic 40-50 tons weight is a good choice + capability to install addon armor

Tracked Stryker is proposal for AMPV program, this is a program to replace M113 family, where GCV program is intended to first replace M2 as IFV, and later there is capability to expand program on other platforms.

As for new MBT, you are very wrong. Modernization capabilities of traditional tank design with manned turret expired, there is no future in such design.

Russians are currently working on heavy tracked platform "Armata", it will be a basis for new MBT, heavy IFV, ARV, new SPH and other possible applications. It weight depending on variant and armor protection will range from approx 50 tons to 65 tons.

New MBT will have all crew in separated compartment in hull, and small, light unmanned turret, so most armor weight could be distributed over hull, thus providing relatively lighter, but better armored vehicle.

So USA sooner or later will need to seek replacement for M1 to keep pace (especially that Russians to keep production lines open, will be forced to export "Armata", possible customers of this new heavy platform, can be USA possible enemies), and fortunetly or not, USA is currently the only NATO country capable to start and successfully finish such program. Hopefully when Russians finally will present "Armata" to wider public, someone from US Army HQ will decide that it is time for new tank.
 

Belesari

New Member
Useability of lightweight armored tracked platforms ended, there is no need for them in role of APC's and IFV's for front line units, as their survivabilit as well as survivability of people inside is just too low.

APC's are not good as a support for infantry and MBT's. IFV with a basic 40-50 tons weight is a good choice + capability to install addon armor

Tracked Stryker is proposal for AMPV program, this is a program to replace M113 family, where GCV program is intended to first replace M2 as IFV, and later there is capability to expand program on other platforms.

As for new MBT, you are very wrong. Modernization capabilities of traditional tank design with manned turret expired, there is no future in such design.

Russians are currently working on heavy tracked platform "Armata", it will be a basis for new MBT, heavy IFV, ARV, new SPH and other possible applications. It weight depending on variant and armor protection will range from approx 50 tons to 65 tons.

New MBT will have all crew in separated compartment in hull, and small, light unmanned turret, so most armor weight could be distributed over hull, thus providing relatively lighter, but better armored vehicle.

So USA sooner or later will need to seek replacement for M1 to keep pace (especially that Russians to keep production lines open, will be forced to export "Armata", possible customers of this new heavy platform, can be USA possible enemies), and fortunetly or not, USA is currently the only NATO country capable to start and successfully finish such program. Hopefully when Russians finally will present "Armata" to wider public, someone from US Army HQ will decide that it is time for new tank.
The US is not russia. To get our forces to theater requires ships and planes. Increasing the weight means increasing the power and fuel expenditures, numbers of trips and lowers the amount of vehicles that can be transported.

A 50ton GCV is going to cost insane amounts. Going to require alot of TLC and in the end wont carry more than a 30ton APC like the germans have been showing us. So two 30 ton apc's with a mounted weapons but no turret and a squad in the back or 1 GCV with the turret and a single squad...

As for the "future" and the idea that tanks are not going to have manned turrets let me ask how those tanks are going to be

a) Maintained in the field when you take atleast half the men out of the loop (which also will hurt readiness sense 1 guy can watch out while the others doze)
b) Able to provide the defense nessesary for the vehicle in urban area's......every set of eyes counts.
c) keep the height low an still provide adaquit protection for the crew which will now be in the hull (you'll need atleast 3 crew) which will mean a larger area inclosed and protected from IED's and Mines.

I've asked the same questions you did and this was in many ways the way it was answered.

The M1A2 is a different beast from the M1A1 but still basicly the same tank. The TUSK upgrade makes them fine for urban area's too.

So yes i believe for the next 40 years the abrams will do just fine.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Useability of lightweight armored tracked platforms ended, there is no need for them in role of APC's and IFV's for front line units, as their survivabilit as well as survivability of people inside is just too low.

APC's are not good as a support for infantry and MBT's. IFV with a basic 40-50 tons weight is a good choice + capability to install addon armor

Tracked Stryker is proposal for AMPV program, this is a program to replace M113 family, where GCV program is intended to first replace M2 as IFV, and later there is capability to expand program on other platforms.
There is still a need for lighter vehicles on the battlefield.
  • Lower ground pressure allows them to go some places that tanks cannot without bogging down.
  • Many bridges cannot handle the weight of a MBT or heavy IFV
A mix heavy and medium weight vehicles is a better choice. The IFV ended up as the medium weight because tanks almost always have to be heavy weight designs. The need for a heavy IFV as well has been demonstrated, but the medium weight role still needs to be filled, preferably by an infantry carrying vehicle because of its greater utility.
As for new MBT, you are very wrong. Modernization capabilities of traditional tank design with manned turret expired, there is no future in such design.

Russians are currently working on heavy tracked platform "Armata", it will be a basis for new MBT, heavy IFV, ARV, new SPH and other possible applications. It weight depending on variant and armor protection will range from approx 50 tons to 65 tons.
Prototype only so far, field trials start next year. First delivery in 2015 IF accepted as is. However, several more spirals of development to work out unacceptable bugs are likely, assuming it is not canceled outright like its predecessors.
New MBT will have all crew in separated compartment in hull, and small, light unmanned turret, so most armor weight could be distributed over hull, thus providing relatively lighter, but better armored vehicle.
While the ideas seem good, they also present some serious problems.
  • Putting the crew completely in the hull requires a significant increase in the hull height, unless they are in the highly inclined position currently only used by the drivers. There is also the need to house all the components they need that would have previously been mounted on the interior of the turret (up to half the turret internal volume, not counting ammunition storage), as well as the crew’s bodies.
    • Multiple hatches weaken glacis.
  • The separate armored crew compartment makes it impossible for the crew to clear a weapons jam without leaving combat for a safe location to exit the vehicle then re-enter through a turret access hatch to reach the autoloader.
    • Transferring any additional ammunition stored elsewhere in the tank to the autoloader will pose similarly problems and is likely to be impractical on the battlefield.
  • The lower turret reduces gun depression, forcing more of the tank hull to appear over a rise before the tank can bear. Russian tanks designs are notoriously short on depression and view it as less important than western users. The value of gun depression versus vehicle height is a hotly debated issue, probably due to different assumptions on what constitutes normal terrain.
  • Removing armor from the turret increases the probability of a weapons kill (i.e. the hull and crew are intact, but the vehicle is no longer capable of combat).
  • The smaller turret significantly reduces space available for crew members conducting maintenance tasks.
  • Reduced situational awareness.
    • Commander is no longer at highest point on vehicle.
    • Commander lacks 360° vision. Panoramic display screens or a virtual reality helmet system can help, but require horizontal and vertical compression to display the full hemisphere, which complicates and slows object recognition. Lower resolution and lack of kinesthetic relationships will cause difficulties dealing with normal hazards like low hanging wires and branches.
    • Difficulty communicating with personnel outside of the vehicle, especially when on off-side or rear. Particularly non-military personnel. Some communications methods, such as by hand signals by the commander, will no longer be possible.
  • Stowage problems. The only place on a tank for external storage that is not likely to block the weapons is the back, and to a limited extent the sides, of the turret. Most vehicles going into combat look like a bag lady’s shopping cart.
While the following article is about external gun mounts, many of the observations apply equally well to remote turret designs. http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1996.jf/1xturret96.pdf
 

Damian90

New Member
The US is not russia. To get our forces to theater requires ships and planes. Increasing the weight means increasing the power and fuel expenditures, numbers of trips and lowers the amount of vehicles that can be transported.

A 50ton GCV is going to cost insane amounts. Going to require alot of TLC and in the end wont carry more than a 30ton APC like the germans have been showing us. So two 30 ton apc's with a mounted weapons but no turret and a squad in the back or 1 GCV with the turret and a single squad...
Even lightweight vehicles requires significant investment in transportation, you can't really quickly transport whole BCT with whole logistic support.

Besides this, one issue is transportation, and the second is effectivenes in battle as well as survivability.

Unless CNT and ADNR based armor materials won't be avaiable, we can forget about lighter weight and more survivable vehicles.

As for the "future" and the idea that tanks are not going to have manned turrets let me ask how those tanks are going to be

a) Maintained in the field when you take atleast half the men out of the loop (which also will hurt readiness sense 1 guy can watch out while the others doze)
b) Able to provide the defense nessesary for the vehicle in urban area's......every set of eyes counts.
c) keep the height low an still provide adaquit protection for the crew which will now be in the hull (you'll need atleast 3 crew) which will mean a larger area inclosed and protected from IED's and Mines.

I've asked the same questions you did and this was in many ways the way it was answered.
1) 3 man crews can maintan vehicle efficently as well, Russian, Ukrainians, French, some other countries as well, are using tanks with 3 men crews, and there are no problems.
2 & 3) The protected internal volume will be actually smaller, so with unmanned turret, more protection can be focused on hull. I think that image from DARPA can be worth a million words. http://btvt.narod.ru/3/fmbt/4b.jpg http://btvt.narod.ru/3/fmbt/5b.jpg http://btvt.narod.ru/3/fmbt/6.jpg
This variant was reported to have a weight of 55 tons, there were 3 more variants of FMBT analized by DARPA. Additional protection can be aquired by APS and RWS for TC.

The M1A2 is a different beast from the M1A1 but still basicly the same tank. The TUSK upgrade makes them fine for urban area's too.

So yes i believe for the next 40 years the abrams will do just fine.
Only if Russians won't field "Armata" platform.

However there is a hope for classic designs like M1, if classic materials used as vehicle armor, can be replaced by CNT and ADNR ones, protection increase can be significant, very significant.

I read that scientists in Australia tested a ballistic vest made from CNT.

Vest was 0,0006mm thick, it is very impressive for such thin material to have such high protection characteristics. For comparrision, a good quality paper page with 180g/m2 is 0,18 mm thick.

The trait that makes carbon nanotubes so interesting for use in bulletproof vests is that the carbon nanotubes have excellent resistance to repeated ballistic impacts. In theory, that would mean that soldiers and police officers wouldn’t need to replace body armor after taking hits and multiple hits in prolonged firefights would be more survivable than with current generation body armor.

Unlike Kevlar fibers that deform and loose effectiveness after struck, the carbon nanotube vest can withstand repeated impacts to the same spot without allowing the bullet to penetrate. The researchers say that body armor 600nm in thickness constructed form six sheets of the 100nm thick carbon nanotube yarns could bounce off a bullet with muzzle energy of 320 J.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-4484/18/47/475701/pdf/nano7_47_475701.pdf

So potential is there, and applications for AFV's could give some new interesting capabilities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is still a need for lighter vehicles on the battlefield.

Lower ground pressure allows them to go some places that tanks cannot without bogging down.
Many bridges cannot handle the weight of a MBT or heavy IFV

A mix heavy and medium weight vehicles is a better choice. The IFV ended up as the medium weight because tanks almost always have to be heavy weight designs. The need for a heavy IFV as well has been demonstrated, but the medium weight role still needs to be filled, preferably by an infantry carrying vehicle because of its greater utility.
And this is what US Army plans to do.

New IFV as well as potential other heavy tracked vehicles designed within GCV program, and light/medium weight platform designed within AMPV program + lightweight wheeled vehicles like Stryker.

Prototype only so far, field trials start next year. First delivery in 2015 IF accepted as is. However, several more spirals of development to work out unacceptable bugs are likely, assuming it is not canceled outright like its predecessors.
Yes of course, but they are working on it, and the problem is that Russians are weeling to field completely new MBT.

I don't know if You know but Object 195 was not accepted for production only because too ambitious fire control system design.

Putting the crew completely in the hull requires a significant increase in the hull height, unless they are in the highly inclined position currently only used by the drivers. There is also the need to house all the components they need that would have previously been mounted on the interior of the turret (up to half the turret internal volume, not counting ammunition storage), as well as the crew’s bodies.

Multiple hatches weaken glacis.
1) In all project there were not problems with vehicle height.
2) Hatches can be placed in such way that they won't be exposed and glacis won't be weaken.

The separate armored crew compartment makes it impossible for the crew to clear a weapons jam without leaving combat for a safe location to exit the vehicle then re-enter through a turret access hatch to reach the autoloader.

Transferring any additional ammunition stored elsewhere in the tank to the autoloader will pose similarly problems and is likely to be impractical on the battlefield.
This is a tradeoff. As for reloading ammunition to autoloader, there won't be need to do so. In USA there were several design for high capacity autoloaders. For example TTB prototype had autoloader for 120mm ammunition with capacity of 44 rounds, autoloaders for M1 Abrams had capcity of 34 and 36 rounds.

The lower turret reduces gun depression, forcing more of the tank hull to appear over a rise before the tank can bear. Russian tanks designs are notoriously short on depression and view it as less important than western users. The value of gun depression versus vehicle height is a hotly debated issue, probably due to different assumptions on what constitutes normal terrain.
Why do You think that turret need to be lower? Height can be same as with manned turrets, more important is widht and lenght.

Removing armor from the turret increases the probability of a weapons kill (i.e. the hull and crew are intact, but the vehicle is no longer capable of combat).
Yes this is a problem, but smaller turret, can have good protection for it's weight and size, while being significantly lighter than manned turret. There are no problems that could not be overcome.

The smaller turret significantly reduces space available for crew members conducting maintenance tasks.
?

Reduced situational awareness.

Commander is no longer at highest point on vehicle.
Commander lacks 360° vision. Panoramic display screens or a virtual reality helmet system can help, but require horizontal and vertical compression to display the full hemisphere, which complicates and slows object recognition. Lower resolution and lack of kinesthetic relationships will cause difficulties dealing with normal hazards like low hanging wires and branches.
Difficulty communicating with personnel outside of the vehicle, especially when on off-side or rear. Particularly non-military personnel. Some communications methods, such as by hand signals by the commander, will no longer be possible.
1) small cameras can help, many designs currently have such systems installed.
2) Tank Infantry Phone + crew still have hatches.
3) Perhaps.

So there are just tradeoffs.
 

Nobody-

New Member
I may just be ignorant here, but wasn't the reason they didn't go to an autoloader in the M1A2 to retain the variety of projectiles the tank could fire? I was under the impression that autoloaders were limited to only one round type, and that was generally a HEAT round. I may be completely mistaken, but it seems to me if the Abrams has to sacrifice the use of sabot, MPAT, and canister rounds to go to an autoloader they're just not going to use it.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I may just be ignorant here, but wasn't the reason they didn't go to an autoloader in the M1A2 to retain the variety of projectiles the tank could fire? I was under the impression that autoloaders were limited to only one round type, and that was generally a HEAT round. I may be completely mistaken, but it seems to me if the Abrams has to sacrifice the use of sabot, MPAT, and canister rounds to go to an autoloader they're just not going to use it.
The other factor is fighting the vehicle isn't the only thing the crew has to do and a lot of those other tasks are a lot easier with an extra pair of hands. Also even in combat an extra pair of eyes and the associated additional brain can come in handy to the point that (I believe) there was some talk about removing some ammo from the Leo II to make room for a fifth crew member to operate added ISR and defensive systems.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not to mention that - at least in the case of the British Army - that a well trained crewman can easily be just as fast if not faster than an autoloader system.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One of the blackhats did a nice breakdown of autoloaders vs manual loaders some time ago - but I can't find it

Abe, Eckherl, Sgt G, Kato might remember where it sits
 

Damian90

New Member
I may just be ignorant here, but wasn't the reason they didn't go to an autoloader in the M1A2 to retain the variety of projectiles the tank could fire? I was under the impression that autoloaders were limited to only one round type, and that was generally a HEAT round. I may be completely mistaken, but it seems to me if the Abrams has to sacrifice the use of sabot, MPAT, and canister rounds to go to an autoloader they're just not going to use it.
This is completely wrong, autoloaders can handle different types of ammunition.

What is the problem with autoloader, is that some types have limited projectile lenght and thus are limiting APFSDS penetrator lenght reducing it's penetration capabilities.

For example AZ-125 autoloader used in most T-72 variants reduces penetrator lenght to approx ~500-600mm. The modernized AZ-185 from T-90A, T-90M/MS and upgraded T-72B2 can store APFSDS projectiles with penetrator lenght of approx ~700-740mm. But ammunition racks in M1 can store projectiles with penetrators close to ~1,000mm in lenght.

Soviets were capable to store a bit longer rounds in 6ETs series of autoloaders used in T-64, T-80 and T-84 tanks.

However both AZ and 6ETs series of autoloaders have their advantages and disadvantages.

As for autoloaders for M1 series, I know about two types considered, one was called Compact Autoloader and made by Meggitt company, it can be placed in current M1 turret without any significant modifications and stores 34 rounds.

http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2008/cms/images/stories/Ammunition_handling_systems/120mm_magazine.jpg

Very good design.

Second was designated as FASTDRAW, and requires a bit more redesigns, it is designed as two drums with 18 rounds each, this means 36 rounds total,.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9592/autoloader5.png

The advantage of autoloader is that You do not need to reload ready rack with ammunition from semi-ready/storage, whole ammuition in autoloader is ready, it means that in current M1A1/M1A2 configuration You have 17/18 ready rounds and 17/18 semi-ready, but with autoloader You have 34/36 ready + 6 stored in hull magazine.

Also autoloader have other advantage, it permitts to use more efficently vehicle internal volume, better crew placement, and in the end, better armor protection.

For example if we would design a new turret for M1, with autoloader and for 2 crewmembers there, we could have better space efficency, better protection efficency, as well as better size and weight efficency.

As for reliability of autoloaders, currently these systems are very reliable, also properly designed autoloader for emergency cases have manual backup.

There are of course other possible design solutions, for example two autoloaders.

Western tanks due to their size, are incredibly adaptable vehicles.

For example if we could use a more compact engine, like MB883, we could gain additional ~950-1000mm of free space behind turret. This space could be used for a second, big separated ammunition magazine with autoloading system.

This design might be complicated for most of people, but in fact it would be rather simple design.

So for example with new turret, the M1 series could store ~35-40 rounds in turret bustle + 20-30 rounds in hull magazine behind turret, both with autoloaders, this would give us 55-70 rounds ready to use. Significant increase in combat load, permitts for prolonged firefights, and longer contribution of each individual vehicle in combat operations. Also more compact and fuel efficent engine would increase this vehicle characteristic .

The other factor is fighting the vehicle isn't the only thing the crew has to do and a lot of those other tasks are a lot easier with an extra pair of hands. Also even in combat an extra pair of eyes and the associated additional brain can come in handy to the point that (I believe) there was some talk about removing some ammo from the Leo II to make room for a fifth crew member to operate added ISR and defensive systems.
There are no perfect solutions, it is always a trade off, something for something.

Not to mention that - at least in the case of the British Army - that a well trained crewman can easily be just as fast if not faster than an autoloader system.
It depends on autoloader design.

For example autoloaders of AZ type used in T-72 and T-90 series load projectiles in two cylces, first projectile, then propelant charge, 6ETs series of autoloaders used in T-64, T-80 and T-84, load both projectile and propelant charge in a single cycle.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTzobtVjqPs"]T-72 Autoloader At Work - YouTube[/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JV7jN925sY"]t-80 autoloader in action - YouTube[/nomedia]

Western types of autoloaders are even faster, because they load a unitary rounds.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6nlvii-bP0"]Auto loader - Leclerc tank - YouTube[/nomedia]
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
It depends on autoloader design.

For example autoloaders of AZ type used in T-72 and T-90 series load projectiles in two cylces, first projectile, then propelant charge, 6ETs series of autoloaders used in T-64, T-80 and T-84, load both projectile and propelant charge in a single cycle.

Western types of autoloaders are even faster, because they load a unitary rounds.
Most definitely, the only real example off the top of my head is a skirmish by the Scots Dragoon Guards in Iraq in '03 where a troop of CR2 engaged and destroyed a fixed Iraqi position including export T-72 & T-55.

The author of the book goes on to talk about that the Iraqis were totally outmatched in terms of the rate of fire the troop was putting down on them despite the fact that CR2 uses multiple piece ammunition (I believe) and manual loading because of the training the loaders get.

I've got 2 big issues with autoloaders though

  • Replacing the loader with an autoloader means that the crew has one less skilled hand for general duties like maintenance and actually replaces it with something that actually requires maintenance putting more of a strain on the rest of the crew. Not to mention the issue of jamming, if the autoloader mechanism jammed - which will happen - how easy would it be for one of the remaining crew to try unjam it and what if it happened under combat circumstances? A loader will not jam, ever.
  • Explosive charges have to be stored in the turret meaning a penetrating hit on the turret would cause an ammunition cook off and could destroy the tank and obliviate the crew requiring turrets to be uparmoured to deal with this. The CR2 for example keeps all it's explosive charges in the hull of the tank and the Leo II and Abrams use separate compartments with blow out panels.

Personally, I believe they are justifiable concerns.
 

Damian90

New Member
Most definitely, the only real example off the top of my head is a skirmish by the Scots Dragoon Guards in Iraq in '03 where a troop of CR2 engaged and destroyed a fixed Iraqi position including export T-72 & T-55.

The author of the book goes on to talk about that the Iraqis were totally outmatched in terms of the rate of fire the troop was putting down on them despite the fact that CR2 uses multiple piece ammunition (I believe) and manual loading because of the training the loaders get.
It depends on autoloader design. You also must understand that T-72, especially in the export variants, is not the best example of autoloader design. Unfortunetly history of soviet tanks is not realy well known in west. And most people still compare soviet tanks by using example of T-72, that from the beggining was a failed design by purpose.

You should remember that best soviet tanks were always designed by one design bureu from Kharkiv, this bureu was reloacted during WWII to Nizhny Tagil, and after WWII as KB-60M directed by genius tank designer Aleksander A. Morozov again placed in Kharkiv.

Morozov was perfectionist, he designed such tanks like T-34/85, T-44, T-54 and T-64. However teething problems with T-64, forced Soviet goverment circles to order UKBTM from Nizhny Tagil, that was mainly responsible for T-55, T-62 and their further modifications and evolutionary upgrades, to design a simplified version of T-64, codenamed Object 172. However the main designer of UKBTM, Leonid Kartsev seen here a chance for his bureau to gain some profits.

Object 172 in the initial requirement was just T-64 with simpler V-45 diesel engine instead of progresive 5TD diesel engine. However Kartsev changed many more things, for example he replaced original suspension and road wheels, replaced 6ETs autoloader with AZ autoloader designed in UKBTM for one of their newer tank design based on T-62.

In the end their designed completely new tank, Object 172M that become T-72.

T-72 and T-64 were basically very similiar, altough where T-64 was progressive, T-72 used many older design solutions.

And this was situation to the end of Soviet Union, for example T-64B had modern FCS comparable to western tanks, T-72B didn't had real FCS, but something called in soviet terminology as sighting system.

T-64BV had properly placed ERA where front turret ERA was formed in to a wedge, so efficency of ERA was increased, and the side skirts had steel frames for ERA, ERA was also placed behind Luna-2G IR reflector, on the turret sides and rear for increased protection, while on T-72B, ERA was placed flat, with decreased efficency, there was no ERA protecting weak zones, and ERA on side skirts were directly mounted to rubber side skirt, which made ERA cassettes vurnable to mechanical damage during manouvering in difficult terrain.

So when T-64 was high quality main battle tank in soviet union, T-72 was lower quality, simpler design, also intended for exports.

T-80 was another history of it's own, as it was designed in LKZ, and was somewhat main battle tank and heavy breaktrough tank substitute in the same time.

T-80 itself was closer to T-64, and was also seen as high quality weapon, and even KB-60M design bureau, renamed after Morozov death az KMDB, seen design as very promising and decided that diesel powered T-80 variant, T-80UD, will be their replacement for T-64B.

And in the end T-80UD was the most advanced Soviet Tank in the late 1980's when Cold War was near it's end.

I strongly recommend to learn a bit of russian, and read that very interesting history of soviet tank development programs, it might give a completely new perspective.

've got 2 big issues with autoloaders though

Replacing the loader with an autoloader means that the crew has one less skilled hand for general duties like maintenance and actually replaces it with something that actually requires maintenance putting more of a strain on the rest of the crew. Not to mention the issue of jamming, if the autoloader mechanism jammed - which will happen - how easy would it be for one of the remaining crew to try unjam it and what if it happened under combat circumstances? A loader will not jam, ever.
Explosive charges have to be stored in the turret meaning a penetrating hit on the turret would cause an ammunition cook off and could destroy the tank and obliviate the crew requiring turrets to be uparmoured to deal with this. The CR2 for example keeps all it's explosive charges in the hull of the tank and the Leo II and Abrams use separate compartments with blow out panels.


Personally, I believe they are justifiable concerns.
This are justible concerns.

1) As far as I know, and talked with tank crews that served on tanks with autoloaders.
- lack of additional crew member is not that big issue, it is there, but it is mainly exagarated.
- autoloader reliability is very high these days, something like jamming is very rare, and even if there is malfunction, crew can still use manual bakcup control to use autoloader, or load gun manually, it is problematic but not immposible.

2) Ammunition storage depends on autoloader design. For example in Soviet, now Russian and Ukrainian tanks, it is indeed very dangerous to store ammunition, and ammo cook offs can happen. However remember that most other tanks are not better in this manner. For example:

- Leopard 2 safely stores only 15 rounds from 42 total, Leclerc safely stores only 22 from 40 total, Challenger 1 & 2 do not have safe storage in modern standards, I seen Challenger 2 photo after F-F incident and ammunition cook off despite lack of armor penetration and propelant charges inside armored bins occured, Italian C1 Ariete also do not have safe ammunition storage, other tanks have ammunition storage modelled after Leopard 2 or Leclerc. I seen Merkava tanks after ammunition cook off, their ammunition storage is also not safe.

I know that for many people this might be blapshemy, but the truth is that the only tank, that was manufactured in large quantities and is used by several armies around the wolrd, and have safe ammunition storage is M1 Abrams.

M1 have two main ammunition magazines in turret bustle, both isolated and with blow off panels, as we as small ammunition magazine behind turret in hull, also isolated and with blow off panels.

So autoloader also can have safe ammunition storage depending on it's design, good examples here are Leclerc, Type 90, Type 10, K2 Black Panther, M1 Abrams modernization proposals with autoloaders, or for example some Russian and Ukrainian prototype designs like Object 640, Object 478H, T-72-120, T-84-120, BM Yatagan, "Burlak" turret combat module, Object 195.
 

Damian90

New Member
I think you'll find that the people at Aberdeen would scoff at that notion...
And I was somewhere talking about people from APG? ;)

I know perfectly that guys at APG had a lot of materials to work with, for example very successfull operation of British BRIXMIS, when they were capable to get inside one of Soviet bases in GDR and make messurements and photographs of T-64's as well as there are rumors that besides steeling full documentation and manuals for T-64, they were able to obtain even full documentation of "Combination K" composite armor. It is more than certain that these informations were also transferred to USA.

Not to mention other spectacular successes like obtaining T-80U... or rather steeling it from Soviet Union, and purchase of T-84 tanks from Ukraine with "Knife" ERA and Drozd active protection system. As far as I know, these tanks are still in APG.

But this does not mean that wider public have such knowledge, looking at most western sources I find them very poor at detailed knowledge about Soviet tanks.

Steven Zaloga tried, but his earlier books are full of mistakes (but this is understandable considering when they were written), and in newer he is too focused on T-72 which is not very interesting design overall.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
IFor example in Soviet, now Russian and Ukrainian tanks, it is indeed very dangerous to store ammunition, and ammo cook offs can happen.
KDMB about 8-9 years ago came out with a bustle mounted auto-loader. Not sure if this will be fitted in the Royal Thai Army's Oplots.

I seen Merkava tanks after ammunition cook off, their ammunition storage is also not safe.
Do you when the pics were taken, in 1982, in the 1990's during clashes with Hezbollah or in 2006? As far as I know, very few Merkava were totally destroyed and the few that were destroyed, were done in by massive IEDs. Do you know of any photos still around that show ammo cooking off in a Merkava?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And I was somewhere talking about people from APG? ;)
No you hadn't, but you also made a comment which was assumptive and had no basis in fact in real life - as quite a few of the black hats in here would attest to.

I know perfectly that guys at APG had a lot of materials to work with, for example very successfull operation of British BRIXMIS, when they were capable to get inside one of Soviet bases in GDR and make messurements and photographs of T-64's as well as there are rumors that besides steeling full documentation and manuals for T-64, they were able to obtain even full documentation of "Combination K" composite armor. It is more than certain that these informations were also transferred to USA.
they had more than just documentation access to red gear - they had the equivalent of a red hat facility for armoured vehicles

Not to mention other spectacular successes like obtaining T-80U... or rather steeling it from Soviet Union, and purchase of T-84 tanks from Ukraine with "Knife" ERA and Drozd active protection system. As far as I know, these tanks are still in APG.
CREF above and yes they are. I think you should be careful about claims that the US stole some of these systems. Quite a few were provided by disgruntled WARPAC members - and in some cases they were provided with actual Sov data, not mickeyed up export models (a claim often made to defend Sov armour as superior but also just as often shown to be flawed) eg The East Germans received Sov rated gear as they were regarded as the most reliable WARPAC members and were "true believers" - something that the US knew via Polish defectors - one of whom was on the Sov General Staff

But this does not mean that wider public have such knowledge, looking at most western sources I find them very poor at detailed knowledge about Soviet tanks.

Steven Zaloga tried, but his earlier books are full of mistakes (but this is understandable considering when they were written), and in newer he is too focused on T-72 which is not very interesting design overall.
If you look through the meanderings about armour and armoured vehicle threads throughout DT you will see commentary from ex and curr black hats about the innaccuracy of claims made - and I pointed out recently that the RHA and penetration ratings that get thrown in here by some enthusiasts are sometimes plain wrong. The discussion shouldn't degenerate into a "Steel Beasts" type claim on capability when quite a few in here know that the data and claims are invariably coloured

There are cold war systems that are still classified data - and yet comments are still made about capability that are errant nonsense

you should be aware that there are ex and curr blackhats in here that were master gunners or equiv in other countries, so when some claims are made, they may well know a different side of reality, but are just as likely not to come in and correct the claims made - for a variety of reasons.

So some clear caution needs to be exercised when making capability claims of any system

I can tell you from personal experience that when I was involved in proximity testing for a particular armoured platform that the public data was just nonsense - and there is no way in Hades that even today, someone will correct those public claims until that entire system gets decommissioned and is not in service anywhere
 

Damian90

New Member
KDMB about 8-9 years ago came out with a bustle mounted auto-loader. Not sure if this will be fitted in the Royal Thai Army's Oplots.
It was for Object 478H, T-84-120 and BM "Yatagan", Thai Army will purchase Object 478DU10 also known as T-84M, "Oplot-M" or BM "Oplot", which use classic 6ETs autoloader in one of the more modern variants.

Do you when the pics were taken, in 1982, in the 1990's during clashes with Hezbollah or in 2006? As far as I know, very few Merkava were totally destroyed and the few that were destroyed, were done in by massive IEDs. Do you know of any photos still around that show ammo cooking off in a Merkava?
2006, it was one Merkava Mk2, hit in to ammunition storage, I also seen second Merkava that was claimed to be Mk4, not much left from it and it didn't look like IED victim, because the only part of what remained from vehicle, the belly was preaty much still intact, what went missing was actually most of rest, so only belly, a bit of front armor and side hull armor left, it was a nasty view, RIP to the crew members.

No you hadn't, but you also made a comment which was assumptive and had no basis in fact in real life - as quite a few of the black hats in here would attest to.
I was just not precise enough, I should say that most of people don't have such knowledge, contrary to people that work, for example in APG or DARPA.

they had more than just documentation access to red gear - they had the equivalent of a red hat facility for armoured vehicles
Yes I know, well It would be nice to had oportunity to get acces to at least bit of that knowledge some day, maybe when I start to write books, and need some informations. I know there are few authors that have some contacts with some militaries.

CREF above and yes they are. I think you should be careful about claims that the US stole some of these systems. Quite a few were provided by disgruntled WARPAC members - and in some cases they were provided with actual Sov data, not mickeyed up export models (a claim often made to defend Sov armour as superior but also just as often shown to be flawed) eg The East Germans received Sov rated gear as they were regarded as the most reliable WARPAC members and were "true believers" - something that the US knew via Polish defectors - one of whom was on the Sov General Staff
Well yes, that's true.

As a side note, I feel a sort of proud that my country, the whole nation had been seen by soviets are unreliable ally, especially in terms of ideology, we Poles were always socialism haters. ;)

If you look through the meanderings about armour and armoured vehicle threads throughout DT you will see commentary from ex and curr black hats about the innaccuracy of claims made - and I pointed out recently that the RHA and penetration ratings that get thrown in here by some enthusiasts are sometimes plain wrong. The discussion shouldn't degenerate into a "Steel Beasts" type claim on capability when quite a few in here know that the data and claims are invariably coloured
Oh we definetly agree here. personally I see RHA equivalent as very unreliable, especially when it comes to modern composite armors that are closer in their working mechanism to ERA, NxRA or NERA... well at least from what we know, and were able to observe. Although these observations are not sufficent enough to make any conclusions about protection levels.

There are cold war systems that are still classified data - and yet comments are still made about capability that are errant nonsense

you should be aware that there are ex and curr blackhats in here that were master gunners or equiv in other countries, so when some claims are made, they may well know a different side of reality, but are just as likely not to come in and correct the claims made - for a variety of reasons.

So some clear caution needs to be exercised when making capability claims of any system

I can tell you from personal experience that when I was involved in proximity testing for a particular armoured platform that the public data was just nonsense - and there is no way in Hades that even today, someone will correct those public claims until that entire system gets decommissioned and is not in service anywhere
I'm perfectly aware of that, however I hear very disturbing rumors, I don't know if they are real or not, but Russians claims that they obtained very detailed data about Leopard 2. It is probable due to wide spread of this tank, and not all countries have very strict OPSEC rules. The only more or less confirmed information is that they obtained somehow Leopard 2 TC PERI device, and used it as example for their own developments.

As I said, it is disturbing, but reliability of these informations is not known.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
2006, it was one Merkava Mk2, hit in to ammunition storage, I also seen second Merkava that was claimed to be Mk4, not much left from it and it didn't look like IED victim, because the only part of what remained from vehicle, the belly was preaty much still intact, what went missing was actually most of rest, so only belly, a bit of front armor and side hull armor left, it was a nasty view, RIP to the crew members.
The CSIS report (Cordesman) mentions two Mk IVs completely destroyed in 2006, one by IED and the other by AT-14. Which shouldn’t be seen as anything significant considering Hezbollah fired 1,000 ATGMs during this war yet only 15 Merkavas (of all marks) suffered armour penetration (many ATGMs were fired at individual infantry, which is a war crime).

I was just not precise enough, I should say that most of people don't have such knowledge, contrary to people that work, for example in APG or DARPA.
There have been large numbers of public published works on Soviet tank development both before and after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
(many ATGMs were fired at individual infantry, which is a war crime).
Why is using a ATGM on an infantryman a warcrime? Everyone seems to be RPGs for the same purpose.

As I understand it Hezbollah was using ATGMs as an effective, though expensive, long range sniping weapon. Definitely overkill, certainly not cost effective, but understandable if they were short on trained personnel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top